Hi Peter and Chris,
(trying to combine the handoff discussion here)
On 06.12.2016 17:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
@@ -693,8 +748,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
* before testing the error conditions to make sure we pick up
* the handoff.
+ *
+ * For w/w locks, we always need to do this even if we're not
+ * currently the first waiter, because we may have been the
+ * first waiter during the unlock.
*/
- if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
+ if (__mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
goto acquired;
So I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this. The point is that with the
.handoff logic it is very easy to accidentally allow:
mutex_lock(&a);
mutex_lock(&a);
And I'm not sure this doesn't make that happen for ww_mutexes. We get to
this __mutex_trylock() without first having blocked.
Okay, took me a while, but I see the problem. If we have:
ww_mutex_lock(&a, NULL);
ww_mutex_lock(&a, ctx);
then it's possible that another currently waiting task sets the HANDOFF
flag between those calls and we'll allow the second ww_mutex_lock to go
through.
The concern about picking up a handoff that we didn't request is real,
though it cannot happen in the first iteration. Perhaps this
__mutex_trylock can be moved to the end of the loop? See below...
/*
@@ -716,7 +775,20 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
schedule_preempt_disabled();
- if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
+ if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+ /*
+ * Always re-check whether we're in first position. We
+ * don't want to spin if another task with a lower
+ * stamp has taken our position.
+ *
+ * We also may have to set the handoff flag again, if
+ * our position at the head was temporarily taken away.
+ */
+ first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
+
+ if (first)
+ __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
+ } else if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
first = true;
__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
}
So the point is that !ww_ctx entries are 'skipped' during the insertion
and therefore, if one becomes first, it must stay first?
Yes. Actually, it should be possible to replace all the cases of
use_ww_ctx || first with ww_ctx. Similarly, all cases of use_ww_ctx &&
ww_ctx could be replaced by just ww_ctx.
@@ -728,7 +800,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
* or we must see its unlock and acquire.
*/
if ((first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true)) ||
- __mutex_trylock(lock, first))
+ __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
break;
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
Change this code to:
acquired = first &&
mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx,
&waiter);
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
if (acquired ||
__mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
break;
}
This changes the trylock to always be under the wait_lock, but we
previously had that at the beginning of the loop anyway. It also removes
back-to-back calls to __mutex_trylock when going through the loop; and
for the first iteration, there is a __mutex_trylock under wait_lock
already before adding ourselves to the wait list.
What do you think?
Nicolai
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
